•446 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


SLAVERY 

INCONSISTENT 


WITH 


JUSTICE  AND  GOOD  POLICY; 

PROVED   BY  A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  IN  TH8 

CONVENTION, 
HELD  AT  DANVILLE,  KENTUCKY. 

BY    THE    REV.    DAVID   RICE. 

i^ 

LET    THE    OPPRESSED    CO    FRI  I.— —ISAIAH    IVIII.    6, 


PHILADELPHIA    PRINTED,    1792. 

REPRINTED,     AND     SOLD     BY    M.    GURNJWy    VtU 
HOLBORN     KILL. 


M.DCC.XCJIJ. 

(Price  Two-pence.) 


C    3     ]. 


MR.  CHAIRMAN, 

IRISH,  Sir,  in  fupport  of  the  motion  now  before  you.  But  my  re- 
verence for  this  body,  the  novelty  of  mj  present  fitnation,  the 
great  importance  and  difficulty  of  the  fubjecl,  and  the  thought  of 
being  oppofcd  by  gentlemen  of  the  greateft  abilities,  have  too  fenfible 
an  impreflion  on  my  mind.  But,  Sir,  I  know  fo  much  of  my  natural 
timidity,  which  increases  with  my  years,  that  I  forefaw  this  would 
be  the  cafe  ;  I  therefore  prepared  a  fpeech  for  the  occafion. 

Sir,  I  have  lived  free,  and  in  many  refpedl*  happy  for  near  fixty 
years :  but  my  happinefs  has  been  greatly  diminished,  for  much  of 
the  time,  by  hearing  a  great  part  of  the  human  fpecies  groaning 
under  the  galling  yoke  of  bondage.  In  this  time  I  loft  a  venerable 
father,  a  tender  mother,  two  affectionate  fitters,  and  a  beloved  firft- 
born  fon  ;  but  all  thefe  together  have  not  coft  me  half  the  anxiety  as 
has  been  occafioned  by  this  wretched  fitaation  of  my  fell»w-mcn, 
whom  without  a  blufli  I  call  my  brethren.  When  I  confider  their 
deplorable  ftate,  and  who  are  the  caufe  of  their  mifery  j  the  load  of 
mifery  that  lies  on  them,  and  the  load  of  guilt  on  us  for  impofmg  it 
on  them ;  it  fills  my  foul  with  anguifh.  I  view  their  diftrefTes,  1  read 
the  anger  ef  Heaven,  I  believe  that  if  I  fliould  not  exert  myfelf, 
when,  and  as  far  as,  in  my  power,  in  order  to  relieve  them,  I  fhould 
be  partaker  of  the  guilt. 

Sir,  the  queftion  is,  Whether  Slavery  is  confident  with  juftice  and 
good  policy  ?  But  before  this  is  anfwered,  it  may  be  neceflary  to  en- 
quire, what  a  flave  is  ? 

A  flave  is  a  human  creature  made  by  law  the  property  of  another 
human  creature,  and  reduced  by  mere  power  to  an  abfolute  uncon- 
ditional fubjeclion  to  his  will. 

This  definition  will  be  allowed  to  be  juft,  with  only  this  one  ex- 
ception, that  the  law  does  not  leave  the  life  and  the  limbs  of  the 
flave  entirely  in  the  matter's  power  :  and  from  it  may  be  inferred  fc- 
veral  melancholy  truths,  which  will  include  a  fufficient  anfwer  to  the 
main  queftion. 

In  order  to  a  right  view  of  this  fubjeft,  I  would  obferve,  that  there 

are  feme  cafes  where  a  man  may  juftly  be  made  a  flave  by  law.     By 

vicious  conduft  he  may  forfeit  his  freedom;  he  may  forfeit  his  life. 

"Where  this  is  th«  cafe,  and  ihc  fafety  of  the  public  maybe  fccured 

At  by 

M10299 


t    4    ] 

•fry  reducing  the  offender  to  a  llate  of  fiavery,  it  will  be  right  j  it  may 
be  an  aft  of  kindnefs.  In  no  other  cafe,  if  my  conceptions  are  juit, 
can  it  be  vindicated  on  principles  of  jufHce  or  humanity. 

As  creatures- of  Goo  we  are,  with  refpeft  to  liberty,  M  equal.  -If 
cne  has  ?.  right  to  live  among  his  fellow  creatures,  and  enjoy  his  free- 
dom, fo  1m  another:  if  one  has  aright  to  enjoy  that  property  he 
.aoqi'u'es  by  an  hem  ft  induftry,  fo  has  another.  If  I  by  force  take  that 
from  anothei,  whrch  lie  ha,s  a  juft  right  to  according  to  the. law. o/  na- 
ture, (which  is  a  divine  law)  which  he  has  never  forfeited,  and  to 
xvhich  hfe  has  never  relinquished  .his  claim,  I  am  certainly  guilty  of 
jnjuftice;and  robbery  ;  and  when  the  thing  taken  is  the  man's  liberty, 
when  it  is  himfelf,  it  is  the  greateft  injuftice.  I  injure  him  much 
more,  than  if  I  robbed  him  of  his  property  on  the  high-way.  In 
this  cafe,  it  does  not. belong  to  him  to.piove  a  negative,  but  to  me  to 
prove  that  fuch  forfeiture  has  been  made  ;  bccaufe,  if  it  has  net, 
he  is  certainly  ftill  the  proprietor.  Ail  he  has  to  do  is  to  mew  the 
jnfufficiency  of  my  proofs. 

A  flave  claims  his  freedom  ;  he  pleads  that  he  is  a  man,  that  he 
was  by  nature  free,  that  he  has  not  forfeited  his  freedom,  nor  re- 
linquimed  it.  Now,  unlefs  his  mafter  can  prove  that  he  is  not  a  man, 
that  he  was  not  born  free,  or  that  he  has  forfeited  or  relinquifhed  his 
freedom,  he  muft  be  judged  free  j  the  juftice  of  his  claim  muft  be 
acknowledged.  His  being  long  deprived  of  this  right,  by  force  or 
fraud,  does  not  annihilate  it  5  it  remains ;  it  is  ftill  his  right.  When, 
I  rob  a  man  of  his  property,  I  leave  him  his  liberty,  and  a  capacity, 
of  acquiring  and  pofferTmg  more  property  ^  but  when  I  deprive  him 
of  his  liberty,  I  alfo  deprive  him  of  this  capacity  ;  therefore  I  do  him 
greater  injury,  when  I  deprive  him  of  his  liberty,  than  when  I  rob 
him  of  his  property.  It  is  in  vain  for  me  to  plead,  that  I  have  the 
fanftion  of  law  ;  for  this  makes  the  injury  the  greater  :  it  arms  the 
community  againft  him,  and  makes -his  cafe  defperate, 

If  my  definition  of  a  flave  is  true,  he  is  a  rational  creature  reduced 
by  the  power  of  legislation  to  the  ftate  of  a  brute,  and  thereby  de- 
prived of.every  privilege  of  .humanity,  except  as  above,  that  he  may 
minifter  to  the  eafe,  luxury,  luft,  pride,  or  avarice  of  another,  no 
better  than  himfelf. 

We  only  want  a  law  enabled  that  r.o  owner  of  a  brute,  nor  other 
perfon,  mould  kill  or  difmember  it,  and  then  in  law  the  cafe  of  a 
flave  and  of  a  brute  is  in  moft  refpecls  parallel  j  and  where  they  differ, 
the  ftatc  of  the  brute  is  to  be  preferred.  The  brute  may  fteal  or 
rob,  to  fupply  his  hunger  j  the  law  dots  not  condemn  him  to  die  for 
his  offence,  it  only  permits  his  death;  but  the  flave,  though  in  the 
moft  ftarving  condition,  darts  not  do  either,  oji  penalty  of  dtath  cf 
forne  fevere  pumfbnient. 

J* 


[    5    1 

:  Is  there  an?  need  of  arguments  to  pipvr,  that  It  Is  in  a  high 
unjuft and  cruel,  to  reduce  one  human  creature  to  fuch  an  abjeft 
wretched  ftate  as  this,  that  he  inay  minifter  to  the  eafe,-  luxury,  or 
avarice  of  another  ?  Has  not  that  other  the  fame  right  to  have  him 
reduced  to  this  ftate,  that  he  may  minifter  to  his  intereft  or  pleafur?  ? 
On  what  is  this  right  founded  ?  Whence  was  it  derived  ?  Did  it 
come  from  heaven,  from  earth,  or  from  hell  r  Has  the  great  King  oF 
heaven,  the  abfohne  fovereign  difpofer.  of  all  men,  given  this  extra- 
ordinary right  to  white  men  over  black  men  ?  Where  is  the  Charter  » 
In  whofe  hands  is  it  lodged  ?  Let  it  be  produced,  and  read,  that  we 
may  know  our  privilege. 

Thus  reducing  men  is  an  indignity,  a  degradation  to  our  own  na- 
ture. Had  we  not  loft  a  true  fenfe  of  its  worth  and  dignity,  w.; 
fhould  blufh  to  fee  it  converted  into  brutes.  We  mould  blufh  to 
fee  our  houfes  filled,  or  furrounded  with  cattle,  in  our  own  fhapes. 
We  mould  look  upon  it  ta  be  a  fouler,  a  blacker  ftain,  than  that  with 
which  the  vertical  funs  have  tinged  the  blood  of  Africa.  When  we 
plead  for  flavery,  we  plead  for  the  difgrace  and  ruin  of  our  nature. 
If  we  are  capable  of  it,  we  may  ever  after  claim  kindred  with  the 
brutes,  and  renounce  our  own  faperior  dignity. 

From  our  definition  it  Will  appear,  that  a  (lave  is  2  creature  m:>.d« 
after  the  image  of  GOD,  and  accountable  to  him  for  the  maintenance 
of  innocence  and  purity;  but  by  law  reduced  to  a  liablenefs  to 
be  debauched  by  men,  without  any  profpecl  or  hope  of  redrefs. 

That  a  flave  is  made  alter  the  image  of  GOD,  no  Chriftian  will 
•deny :  that  a  flave  is  abfolutely  fubjecled  to  be  debauched  by  men< 
is  fo  apparent  from  the  nature  of  flavery,  that  it  needs  no  proof* 
This  is  evidently  the  unhappy  cafe  of  female  flaves  ;  a  number  of 
whom  have  been  remarkable  for  their  chaftily  and  inodefty.  If  their 
inafter  attempts  their  chaftity,  they  dare  neither  refift  nor  complain: 
If  another  man  mould  make  the  attempt,  though  refiftance  may  not 
be  fo  dangerous,  complaints  are  equally  vain.  They  cannot  be- 
heard  in  their  own  defence  ;  their  testimony  cannot  be  admitted. 
The  injurious  perfon  has  a  right  to  be  heard,  may  accufe  the  innocent 
fufftrer'of  malicious  (lander,  and  have  her  feverely  chaftifed. 

A  virtuous  woman,  and  virtuous  Africans  no  doubt  there  are, 
cfteems  her  chaftty  aboye  every  other  thing  :  forne  have  preferred  it 
even  to  their  live?.  Then,  forcibly  to  deprive  her  of  this,  is  treating 
her  with  the  greateft  injuftice.  'Therefore,  fince  law  leaves  the 
chaftity  of  a  female  flave  entirely  in  the  power  of  her  mafter,  and 
greatly  in  the  power  of  others,  it  permits  this  injuftice  5  it  provides 
no  remedy  ;  it  refufes  to  redref.  tlus  infufftraSle  grievance j  it  denies 
even  the  fmall  priviiege  of  complaining. 

From  our  definition  it  will  follow,  that  a  flave  is  a  free  moral  agent, 

legally  deprived  of  free  agency,  and  obliged  to  aft  according  to  the 

A  3  will 


C    6    ] 

wiU  of  another  free  agent  of  the  fame  fpecies :  and  yet  he  is  account* 
able  to  his  Creator  for  the  ufe  he  makes  of  his  own  free  agency. 

When  a  mar,  though  he  can  exift  independent  of  another,  cannot 
aft  independent  of  him,  his  agency  muft  depend  upon  the  will  of 
that  other;  and  therefore  he  is  deprived  of  his  own  free  agency  j  and 
jet,  as  a  free  agent,  he  is  accountable  to  his  Maker  for  all  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body.  This  comes  to  pafs  through  a  great  omiflion  and 
inconfiftency  in  the  legislature.  They  ought  farther  to  have  enacted, 
in  order  to  have  been  confiftent,  that  the  Have  fhould  not  have  been 
accountable  for  any  of  his  actiems;  but  that  his  mafter  fhould  have 
anfwtred  for  him  in  all  things,  here  and  hereafter. 

That  a  flave  has  the  capacities  of  a  free  moral  agent,  will  be  allowed 
by  alJL  That  he  is,  in  many  instances,  deprived  by  law  of  the  exer» 
cife  of  thefe  powers,  evidently  appears  from  his  iituation.  That  he 
is  accountable  to  his  Maker  for  his  cenduct,  will  be  allowed  by  thofe,. 
who  do  not  believe  that  human  legifiatures  are  omnipotent,  and 
can  free  men  from  this  allegiance  and  fubjeftion  to  the  King  of  hea- 
ven. 

1  he  principles  of  conjugal  love  and  fidelity  in  the  breaft  of  a  vir- 
tuous pair,  of  natural  affedhcn  in  parents,  and  a  fenfe  of  duty  irk 
children,  are  infcnbed  there  by  the  finger  of  GOD  ;  they  are  the  laws 
of  heaven  :  but  an  inflaving  law  directly  oppofes  them,  and  virtually 
forbids  ob.d^ence.  The  relations  of  hufband  and  wife,  of  par«nt  and 
child,  are  formed  by  divine  authority,  and  founded  on  the  laws  of 
nature.  But  it  ism  the  power  of  a  cruel  mafter,  and  often  of  a  needy- 
creditor,  to  break  thefe  tender  connections,  and  for  ever  to  feparate 
thefe  deareft  relatives.  This  is  ever  done,  in  fact,  at  the  call  of  in- 
t  ere  ft,  or  of  humour.  The  poor  furTerers  may  expoflulate  ;  they  may 
plead  j  may  plead  with  tears  j  their  hearts  may  break ;  but  all  in 
*ain.  The  Jaws  of  nature  are  violated,  the  tender  ties  are  diffolvedr 
a  final  feparation  takes  place,  and  the  duties  of  thefe  relations  can  no 
longer  be  performed,  nor  their  comforts  enjoyed.  Would  thefe  flaves 
perform  the  duties  of  hufbands  and  wives,  parents  and  Children  j  the 
law  difables  them,  it  puts  it  altogether  out  of  their  power. 

In  thefe  cafes,  it  is  evident  that  the  laws  of  nature,  or  the  laws  of 
man,  are  wrong }  and  which,  none  will  be  at  a  lofs  to  judge.  The 
divine  law  fays,  Whom  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no  man  put 
afunder  :  the  law  of  man  fays,  to  the  mafter  of  the  flave,  Though 
the  divine  law  has  joined  them  together,  you  may  put  them  afunder 
when  you  pleafe.  The  divine  law  fays,  Train  up  your  child  in  tlte 
way  he  fhould  go:  the  law  of  man  fays,  You  mall  not  train  up  your 
child,  but  as  your  mafter  thinks  proper.  The  divine  law  fays,  Honour 
your  father  and  mother,  and  obey  them  in  all  things  :  but  the  law  of 
man  fays,  Honour  and  obey  your  mafter  in  all  things,  and  your  parents 
juft  as  faras  he  fhall  direct  you. 

Should 


t    7    J 

Should  a  matter  corrraiaad  his  flave  to  fUal  of  rob,  and  he  fhouW 
prcfume  to  difobcy,  he  is  liable  to  fuffer  every  extremity  of  punifh- 
ment,  ihort  of  death  or  amputation,  from  the  hand  of  his  matter  5 
at  the  fame  time  he  is  liable  to  a  puni foment  equally  fcverc,  if  not 
death  itfelf,  ihould  he  obey. 

He  is  bound  by  law,  if  his  mafterpleafes,  to  do  that  for  which  the 
law  condemns  him  to  death. 

Another  confequettce  of  oar  definition  is,  That  a  Have,  being  a  fret 
ir.oral  agent,  and  an  accountable  creature,  is  a  capable  fubjeft  of  re* 
Kgion  and  morality  ;  but  deprived  by  law  of  the  means  of  inftruftion 
in  the  doftrmes  and  duties  of  morality,  any  fatther  thaa  his  matter 
pleafes. 

It  is  in  the  power  of  the  matter  to  deprive  him  of  all  the  means  of 
religious  and  moral  inftruclion,  either  in  private  or  in  public.  Some 
matters  have  actually  exercifed  this  power,  and  retrained  their  Haves 
from  the  means  of  instruction,  by  the  terror  of  the  lafh.  Slaves  have 
not  opportunity,  at  their  own  difpofal,  for  inftruc"ting  cortverfation } 
it  is  put  out  ot  their  power  to  learn  to  read  j  and  their  matters  may 
reftrain  them  from  other  means  of  information.  Matters  dengnedly 
keep  their  (laves  in  ignorance,  left  they  fhould  betome  too  knowing 
to  anfwer  their  felfifh  purpofes ;  and  too  wife  to  rett  eafy  in  their  de- 
graded fituation.  In  this  cafe,  the  law  operates  fo  as  to  anfwer  an  end 
directly  oppofed  to  the  proper  «nd  of  all  law.  It  is  pointed  again  ft 
every  thing  dear  to  them  j  againtt  the  principal  end  of  their  exiftence. 
It  fupports,  in  a  land  of  religious  liberty,  the  fevereft  perfections  $ 
and  may  operate  fo  as  totally  to  rob  multitudes  of  their  religious  pri- 
vileges, and  the  rights  of  confcience. 

If  my  definition  is  juft,  a  flave  is  one  who  is  bound  to  fpend  his  life 
in  the  fervice  of  another,  to  whom  he  owes  nothing,  is  under  no 
obligation;  who  is  not  legally  bound  to  find  him  victuals,  clothes, 
medicine,  or  any  ether  means  of  preservation,  fupport,  or  comfort. 

That  a  flave  is  hound  to  fpend  his  life  in  the  fervice  of  his  matter, 
no  one  will  difpute ;  and  that  he  is  not  indebted  to  his  matter,  is  under 
no  obligations  to  him,  is  alfo  evident.  How  can  he  poffibjy  be  in- 
dtbted  to  him,  who  deprives  him  of  liberty,  property,  and  almott 
every  thing  dear  to  a  human  creature  ?  And  all  he  receives  is  the 
bare  means  of  fubfiftence  j  and  this  not  bettowed,  until  he  has  earned 
it  ;  and  then  not  in  proportion  to  his  labour ;  nor  out  of  regard  to 
him,  but  for  felfifh  purpofes.  This  bare  fupport  the  matter  is  not 
bound  by  law  to  give  j  but  is  left  to  be  guided  by  his  own  intereft  or 
humour:  and  hence  the  poor  Have  often  falls  fhort  of  what  is  necef* 
fary  for  the  comfortable  fupport  of  the  body. 

The  matter  is  die  enemy  of  the  flave :  he  has  made  open  war  aeainft 
him,  and  is  daily  carrying  it  on  in  unremitted  efforts.  Can  any  one 
then  imagine,  that  the  flave  is  indebted  to  his  matter,  and  bound  to 

A  4.  ferr« 


f  *   3 

Whence  can  the  obligation  arife?  What  Is  it  founded 
Upon  ?  What  is  my  duty  to  an  enemy,  that  is  carrying  on  v/ar  againft 
me?  I  clo  not  deny,  but,  infomecircumftances,it  is  the  duty  of  the  flave 
to  fet.vej  but  it  is  a  duty  he  bwes  himfelf,  and  not  his  mafter.  The 
mafter  may,  arid  often  does,  inflict  upon  him  all  the  feverity  of  punifh- 
fflent  the  human- body  is  capable  of  bearing  5  and  the  law  fupports 
him  in  it.  If  he  does  but  fpare  his  life  and  his  Jimbs,  he  dare  not  com- 
plain :  -none  can  hear  and  relieve  -him;  he  has  no  red  re  fC  under 
Heaven* 

When  wp  duly  confider  all  thefe  things,  it  muft  appear  unjuft  to 
-the  laft  deguce,  to  force  a  feilow  creature,  who  ha.s  never  forfeited  his 
freedom,  into  this  wretched  lituaticn  j  and  confine  him  and  his  poflc- 
rity  in  this  bottomlefs  gulph  of  wretchednefs  for  ever.  Where  is  th« 
fympathy,  the  tender  feelings  of  humanity  ?  Where  is  the  heart  that 
,<Joes  not  melt  at  this  fcene  of  woe?  or  that  is  not  fired  with  indig- 
nation, to  fee  fuch  injustice  and  cruelty  countenanced  by  civilized 
nations,  and  fupporttd  by  the  fanftion  of  law  ? 

If  flavery  is  not  confident  with  juftice,  it  muft  be  iricorifirUnt  with 
good  policy.  For  who  would  venture  to  afftrt,  that  it  would  be 
good  policy  for  us  to  erect  a  public  monument  of  our  Injuftice,  and 
that  injuftice  is  nectlfary  for  our  profperhy  and  h^ppii;cfs?'  Tli^t 
old  proverb,  Koneft/  is  the  bt'it  poJiC)>  ought  not  to  tH>  ('tJp.'d-d  ,\>r 
its  age. 

But  the  inconfiftency  of  flavery  with  good  policy  will  fully  appeart 
if  we  confider  another  confequenee  of  our  definition,  viz. 

A  Uave  is  M  member  of  civ.-l  fociety,  bound  to  obey  the  laws  of  the 
land  j  to  which  laws  be  never  contented  j  which  partially  and  feebly 
protect  his- perfonj  which  allow  him  no  property;  from  which  he 
can  receive  no  advantage  j  and  which  chiefly,  as  they  relate  to  him, 
were  made  to  jxinUh  him.  He  is  therefore  bound  to  fubmit  to  3 
government,  to  which  he  owes  no  allegiance  ;  from  which  he  receives 
great  injury;  and  to  which  he  is  under  no  obligations :  and  to  per- 
form fervices  to  a  fociety,  to  which  he  owes  nothing,  and  in  whofc 
profperity  he  has  no  intereft.  That  he  is  under  this  government, 
and  forced  to  fubmit  to  it,  appears  from  his  fuffering  the  penalty  of 
its  laws.  That  he  receives  no  benefit  by  the  laws  and  government  lie 
is  under,  is  evident  from  their  depriving  him  of  his  liberty,  and  the 
means  of  happinefs.  Though  they  protect  his  life  and  his  limbs, 
they  confine  him  in  mifery,  they  will  not  fuffer  him  to  fly  from  it ; 
the  greateft  favours  they  afford  him,  chiefly  ferve  to  perpetuate  his 
wretchednefs. 

He  is,  then,  a  member  of  fociety,  who  is,  properly  fpeaking,  in  a 
flate  of  war  with  his  mafter,  his  civil  rulers,  and  every  free  member 
of  that  fociety.  They  are  all  his  declared  enemies,  having,  in  him, 
«nade  vrar  upon  almofl  every  thing;  dear  to  a  human  creature.  It  is  a 

perpetual 


I    9    1 

perpetual  war,  with  an  avowed  purpofe  of  never  making  pe.ice. 
This  war,  as  it  is  unprovoked,  is,  on  the  part  of  the  Have,  properly 
defenfive.  The  injury  ^done  him  is  much  greater  than  what  is  genes- 
rally  ei^eemed  a  juft  ground  of  war  between  different  nations  ;  it  is 
much  greater  than  was  the  caufe  of  war  between  us  and  Britain. 

It  cannot  be  confident  with  the  principles  of  good  policy  to  keep 
a  numerous,  a  growing  body  of  people  among  us,  who  add  no  ftrength 
to  us  in  time  of  war  j  who  are  under  the  ftrongtft  temptations  tt> 
join  an  enemy,  as  it  is  fcarce  poffible  they  can  loie,  and  may' be  great 
gainers,  by  the  event  5  who  will  count  fc  many  againft  us  in  an  hour 
of  danger  and  d.flrefs.  A  people  whcfe  intereft  it  will  be,  whenever 
in  their  power,  to  fubvert  the  government,  and  throw  all  into  confu* 
fion.  Can  it  be  fafe  ?  Can  it  be  good  policy  r  Can  it  be  our  intereft^ 
or  the  intereft  of  poftcrity,  to  nourifh  within  our  own  bowels  fuch  an 
injured,  inveterate  foe  ?  A  foe  with  whom  we  muft  he  in  a  ftate  &( 
eternal  war  ?  What  havock  would  a  handful  cf  favage.s,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  this  domeftic  enemy,  make  in  our  country  !  Efpecially  at  a 
period  when  the  main  body  of  the  inhabitants  were  fcftened  byluxur^ 
and  cafe,  and  quite  unfitted  for  the  hardships  and  dan*f  rs  of  war.  Let 
us  tumour  eyes  to  the  Weft  Indies;  and  there  learn  the  melancholy 
eftefts  of  this  wretched  policy.  We  may  there  read  them  written 
with  the  blood  of  thoufands.  There  you  may  fee-the  fable,  let  me 
lay,  the  brave  Tons  cf  Africa,  engaged  in  a  noble  conflict  with  their  in- 
vetefate  foes.  There  you  may  fee  thoufands  fired  with  a  generous 
refentment  of  the  greater!  injuries,  and  bravely. facflfTcihg" their  "lives 
on  the  altar  of  liberty. 

In  A'merica,  a  flave  is  ?.  ftanding  monument  of  .the  tyranny  and  in- 
cor.ftency  of  human  governments. 

He  is  dechrecl  by  the  united  voice  of  America,  to  be  by  nature  free, 
and  intitled  to  tfie  privilege  of  acquiring  and  enjoying  property :  and 
yet  b"/  1  :-.v,  tvuRd  and  in  forced  in  thefe  States,  retained  in  flavery, 
and  d.fpc^fFtrT.-d  of  all  property  and  capacity  of  acquiring  any.  They 
have  furnifhed  a  ftriking  inftance  of  a  people  carrying  on  war  in  de- 
fence of  principles,  which  thtry  are  actually  and  avowedly  deftroylng 
by  legal  force  j  ufingone  meafure  for  themfelves,  and  another  for  their 
neighbours. 

Kvcry  ftate,  in  order  to  gain  credit  abroad,  ant!  confidence  at  home 
and  to  give  proper  energy  to  government,  fhould  ftudy  to  be  confift- 
cr;t  j  their  conduct  fhould  not  difagree  with  their  avowed  principlesj 
nor  be  inconfiftent  with  its  fevcral  parrs.  Confident  jurticeis  thefolid 
bafis  on  which  .the  fabric  of  government  will  reft  fecurely.  Take  tW« 
away,  and  the  building  totters,  and  is  liable  to  fall  before  every  blaft. 
It  is,  I  prefume,  the:ivowed  principle  of  each  of  us,  tha'tfa'll  men  are 
by  nature  free,  and  are  ftill  entitled  to  freedom,  unlcfs  they  have  for- 
feited it.  Now,  after  this  is  fcen  and  acknowledged,  to  enact  that  men 

A  5  ihould 


(hould  be  flaves,  againft  whom  we  have  no  evidence  that  they  have 
forfeited  their  right  j  what  would  it  be,  but  evidently  to  fly  in  our  own 
face ;  to  contradict  ourfclves  ;  to  proclaim  before  the  world  our  own 
inconfiftency ;  and  warn  all  men  to  repofe  no  confidence  in  us  ?  After 
this,  what  credit  can  we  ever  expect  ?  What  confidence  can  we  re- 
pofe in  each  other  ?  If  we  generally  concur  in  this  nefarious  deed,  we 
dcftroy  mutual  confidence,  and  break  every  link  of  the  chain  that 
ihould  bind  us  together. 

Are  we  rulers?  How  can  the  people  confide  in  us,  after  we  have 
thus  openly  declared  that  we  are  -void  of  truth  and  fincerity ;  and, 
that  we  are  capable  of  enflaving  mankind  in  direct  contradiction  to 
our  own  avowed  principles  ?  What  confidence  in  legislators,  who  are 
capable  of  declaring  their  conftituents  all  free  men,  in  one  breath ; 
and,  in  the  next,  enacting  them  all  flaves  ?  In  one  breath,  declaring 
that  they  have  a  right  to  acquire  and  poflefs  property  5  and,  in  the  next, 
that  they  fliall  neither  acquire  nor  pofiefs  it,  during  their  exigence 
here  ?  Can  I  truft  my  life,  my  liberty,  my  property  in  fuch  hands  as 
thefe  ?  Will  the  colour  of  my  fkin  prove  a  fumcient  defence  againft 
their  injuftice  and  cruelty  ?  Will  the  particular  circumftance  of  my 
anceftors  being  born  in  Europe,  and  not  in  Africa,  defend  me  ?  Will 
'ftraight  hair  defend  me  againft  the  blow  that  falls  fo  heavy  on  the  woolly 
head  ? 

If  I  am  a  difhoneft  man,  if  gain  is  my  God,  and  this  may  be  ac- 
quired by  fuch  an  unrighteous  law,  I  may  rejoice  to  find  it  enacted  : 
but  I  never  can  believe  that  the  legislators  were  honeft  men ;  or  re- 
pofe the  leaft  confidence  in  them,  when  their  own  intereft  would 
Jead  them  to  betray  it.  I  never  can  truft  to  the  integrity  of  that 
judge,  who  can  fit  upon  the  feat  of  juftice,  and  pafs  an  unrighteous 
judgment,  becaufe  it  is  agreeable  to  law  j  when  that  law  itfelf  is  con- 
trary to  the  light  and  law  of  nature. 

Where  no  confidence  can  be  put  in  men  of  public  truft,  the 
exercife  of  government  muft  be  very  uneafy,  and  the  condition  of  the 
people  extremely  wretched.  We  may  conclude,  with  the  utmoft  cer- 
tainty, that  it  would  be  bad  policy  to  reduce  matters  to  this  unhappy 
Situation. 

Slavery  naturally  tends  to  fap  the  foundations  of  moral,  and  confe- 
quenriy  of  political  virtue}  and  virtue  is  abfolutely  neceffary  for  the 
happinefs  and  profperity  of  a  free  people.  Slavery  produces  idlenefs  j 
and  idlenefs  is  thenurfe  of  vice.  A  vicious  commonwealth  is  a  build- 
ing «erected  on  quick-land,  the  inhabitants  of  which  can  never  abide 
in  fafety. 

Young  gentlemen,  who  ought  to  be  the  honour  and  fupport  of  the 
ftate,  when  they  have  in  profpect  an  independant  fortune  confifting  in 
land  and  flaves,  which  they  can  eafily  devolve  on  a  faithful  overfeeror 
fteward,  become  the  moft  ufelefsandiniignificant  members  of  fociety. 

There 

9 


[  II  ] 

There  is  no  confining  them  to  ufeful  ftudies,  or  any  bu fine fs  that  will 
tit  them  for  fcrving  the  public.  They  are  employed  in  fcenes  of 
plcafure  and  diffipation.  They  corrupt  each  other  ;  they  corrupt  the 
morals  01'  all  around  them  :  while  their  flaves,  even  in  time  of  peace, 
are  tar  from  being  equally  uftful  to  fociety  with  the  fame  number  of 
free  men ;  and,  in  time  of  war,  are  to  be  confidered  as  an  enemy 
lodged  within  our  walls.  I  fait!,  they  are  ufelefs  infignificant  mem- 
bers of  foc»ety.  I  mould  have  faid  more  ;  I  mould  have  faid,  they  are 
intolerable  nuifances,  pernicious  pefts  of  fociety.  I  mean  not  to  re- 
•^proach  men  of  fortune  5  I  mean  only  to  point  out  the  natural  tendency 
of  fiavery,  in  order  to  mew,  how  inconfiftent  it  is  with  good  policy. 

The  profperity  of  a  country  depends  upon  the  induilry  of  its  in- 
habitants. Idlenefs  w;ll  produce  poverty  ;  and  when  fiavery  becomes 
common,  induftry  finks  into  difgrace.  To  labour,  is  to  Jlave,  to 
work,  is  to  work  like  a  Negroe  :  and  this  is  difgraceful.  It  levels  us 
with  the  meaneft  of  the  fpecies;  it  fits  hard  upon  the  mind  ;  it  can- 
not be  patiently  borne.  Youth  are  hereby  tempted  to  idlenefs,  and 
drawn  into  ether  vices:  they  fee  no  other  way  to  keep  their  credit, 
and  acquire  ibme  little  importance.  This  renders  them,  like  thofe 
they  ape,  nuifances  of  fociety.  It  frequently  tempts  them  to  gaming, 
theft,  robbery,  or  forgery  j  for  which  they  often  end  their  days  in  dif- 
grace on  the  gallows.  Since  every  ftate  muft  be  fupported  by  in- 
duilry, it  is  exceedingly  unwife  to  admit  what  will  inevitably  fink  it 
into  difgrace :  and  that  this  is  the  tendency  of  flavery,  is  known  from 
matter  of  facl. 

Slavery  naturally  tends  to  deftroy  all  fenfe  of  juftice  and  equity.  It 
puffs  up  the  mind  with  pride  j  teaches  youth  a  habit  of  looking  upon 
their  fellow  creatures  with  contempt,  efteeming  them  as  dogs  or 
devils,  and  imagining  themfelves  beings  of  fuperior  dignity  and  im- 
portance, to  whom  all  are  indebted.  This  banifhes  the  idea,  and 
unqualifies  the  mind  for  the  practice,  of  common  juftice.  If  I  hive, 
all  my  days,  been  accuftomed  to  live  at  the  expence  of  a  black  man, 
without  making  him  any  compenfation,  or  confidering  myfelf  at  all 
in  his  debt,  I  cannot  think  it  any  great  crime  to  live  at  the  expence  of 
a  white  man.  If  I  can  rob  a  black  man  without  guilt,  I  fhall  contract 
no  great  guilt  by  robbing  a  white  man.  If  I  have  been  long 
accuftomtd  to  think  a  black  man  was  made  for  me,  I  may  eafily  take 
it  into  my  head  to  think  fo  of  a  white  man.  If  I  have  no  fenfe  of 
obligation  to  do  juflice  to  a  black  man,  I  can  have  little  to  do  juflice  to 
a  white  man.  In  this  cafe,  the  tinge  of  our  fkins,  or  the  place  of 
our  nativity,  can  nuke  but  little  difference.  If  I  arn  in  principle  a 
friend  to  flavery,  I  canror,  to  be  confident,  think  it  any  crime  to  rob 
my  country  of  its  property  and  freedom,  whenever  my  intereft  calls, 
and  I  find  it  in  my  power.  If  I  make  fcny  difference  here,  it  muft  be 
owing  to  a  vicious  education,  the  force  of  prejudice,  or  pride  of 

A  6  heart* 


heart.  If  in  principle  a  friend  to  flavery,  I  cannot  feel  myfelf  obliged 
to  pay  the  debt  due  to  my  neighbour.  If  I  can  wrong  him  of  all  his 
poflfefiions,  and  avoid  the  law,  all  is  well. 

The  deftruction  of  chaftity  has  a  natural  ^tendency  to  introduce  a 
number  of  vices,  that  are  very  pernicious  to  the  intereft  of  a  com- 
monwealth $  and  flavery  much  conduces  to  deftrov  chaftity,  as  it  puts 
fo  great  a  number  of  females  entirely  in  the  power  of  the  other  fex ; 
igainft  whom  they  dare  not  complain,  on  peril  of  the  lam  ;  and  many 
of  whom  they  dare  not  refift.  This  vice,  this  bane  of  fociety,  has 
already  become  fo  common,  that  it  is  fcarely  efteemed  a  difgrace,  in 
the  one  fex,  and  that  the  one  that  is  generally  the  molt  criminal.  Let 
it  become  as  little  difgraceful  in  the  other,  and  there  is  an  end  to 
domeftic  tranquillity,  an  end  to  the  public  profperity. 

It  is  neceffary  to  our  national  profperity,  that  the  eftates  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  country  be  greatly  productive.  But  perhaps  no 
eftates,  poffeffed  in  any  par*  of  the  world,  are  lefs  productive  than 
thofe  which  confifl  in  great  numbers  of  flaves.  In  fuch  eftates  there 
will  be  old  and  decrepit  men  and  women,  breeding  women,  and  little 
children :,  all  muft  be  maintained.  They  labour  only  from  fervile 
principles,  and  therefore  rot  to  equal  advantage  with  free  men. 
They  will  labour  as  little,  they  will  uke  as  little  care,  as  they  poflibly 
can.  When  their  maintenance  is  deducted  from  the  fruit  of  their  la- 
•tour,  only  a  fmall  pittance  remains  for  the  owner.  Hence  many, 
who  are  proud  of  their  eftates,  and  envied  for  their  wealth,  are  living 
in  poverty,  and  immerfed  in  debt.  Here  are  large  eftates  to  be  taxed  ; 
'but  fmall  incomes  to  pay  the  taxes.  This,  while  it  gives  us  weight 
in  the  fcale  of  the  Union,  will  make  us  groan  under  the  burden  of  our 
own  importance. 

Put  all  the  above  confiderations  together,  and  it  evidently  appears, 
ihat  flavery  is  neither  confiftent  with  juftice  nor  good  policy.  Thefe 
are  confiderations,  one  would  think,  fufScient  to  fiience  every  objec- 
tion ;  but  I  forefee,  notwithstanding,  that  a  number  will  be  made, 
fome  of  which  have  a  formidable  appearance. 

Itwillbefaid,  Negroes  were  made  flaves  by  law,  they  were  con  verted 
into  property  by  an  aft  of  the  legiflature;  and  under  the  fanction  of 
that  law  I  purchafed  them  ;  they  therefore  became  my  property,  I 
have  a  legal  claim  to  them.  To  repeal  this  law,  to  annihilate  flavery, 
"would  be  violently  to  deftroy  what  I  legally  purchafed  with  my  money, 
or  inherit  from  my  father.  It  would  be  equally  unjuft  with  difpof- 
fcffirig  me  of  my  horfes,  cattle,  or  any  other  fpecies  of  property.  To 
'difpoffefs  me  of  their  offspring  would  be  injuftice  equal  to  difpoffeffirrg 
Tfte  of  the  annual  profits  of  my  eftate.  This  is  an  important  objec- 
tion, and  it  calls  for  a  ferious  anfwer. 

The  matter  feems  to  fta'hd  thus:  Many  years  ago,  men,  being  de- 
prived of  their  natural  right  to  freedom,  and  made  flaves,  were 

by 


[     '3     ] 

by  law  converted  into  property.  This  law,  it  Is  true,  was  wrong,  it 
eilnbliihed  iniquity  ;  it  was  againft  the  law  of  humanity,  common 
fenfe,  reafon,  and  confcience.  It  was,  however,  a  law  5  and  under 
the  fanfticn  of  it,  a  number  of  men,  regardlefs  of  its  iniquity,  pur- 
cliafed  thefe  flaves,  and  made  their  fellow  men  their  property. 

The  queltion  is  concerning  the  liberty  of  a  man.  The  man  himfelf 
claims  it  as  his  own  property.  He  pleads  that  it  was  originally  his  own, 
that  he  has  never  forfeited,  nor  ali-enated  it ;  and  therefore  by  the 
common  laws  of  juftice  and  humanity,  it  is  ftill  his  own.  The  pur- 
chafer  of  the  flave  claims  the  fame  property.  He  pleads  that  he  pur- 
chall-cl  it  under  the  fancTion  of  a  law,  enaded  by  the  lesiflature;  and 
therefore  it  became  his.  Now  the  queftion  is,  who  has  the  heft  claim  ? 
Did  the  property  in  queftion  belong  to  the  leg'.flature  ?  Was  it  veiled 
in  them  ?  If  Jegiflatures  are  poffefled  of  fuch  property  as  this,  may 
another  never  exift !  No  individual  of  their  conftituents  could  claim 
it  as  his  own  inherent  right;  it  was  not  in  them  colledlively  j  and 
therefore  they  could  not  convey  it  to  their  repreferitatives.  Was  it 
ever  known  that  a  people  chofe  reprefentatives  to  create  and  transfer 
this  kind  of  property  ?  The  le'giflature  were  not,  they  could,  not  be" 
polfefled  of  it;  and  therefore  cculd  not  transfer  it  to  another;  they 
could  not  give  what  they  themfelves  had  not.  Now,  does  this  pro- 
perty belong  to  him,  who  received  it  from  a  legiflature  that  had  it  not 
to  give,  and  by  a  law  they  had  no  right  to  enaft  ?  or  to  the  ori- 
ginal owrer,  who  has  never  forfeited,  nor  alienated  his  right  r  If  a 
law  Should  pafs  for  felling  an  innocent  man's  head,  and  I  fliould  pur- 
chafe  it;  ha*e  I,  in  co:  fequence  of  this  law  and  this  purchafe,  a 
better  claim  to  this  man's  head  than  he  has  himfelf  ? 

To  call  our  fellow  men,  who  have  not  forfeited,  nor  voluntarily  re- 
figr.ed  their  liberty,  our  property,  is  a  grofs  abfurdity,  a  contradiction 
•to  common  ft- nfe,  and  an  indignity  to  human  rature.  The  owners  of 
fic,'>.  flave-r.  then  are  the  licenced  robbers,  and  not  the  juft  proprietors, 
of  wh.it  theyclnim.  Freeing  them  is  not  depriving  them  of  property, 
»g  it  to  the  right  owner ;  it  is  flittering  the  unlawful  captive 
to  efcape.  It  is  not  wron^inr  the  mafter,  hut-doim^  juftice  to  the  • 
'flave,  rertoring  him  to  himftlf.  The  rm-fter,  it  is  true,  is  wronged  j 
he  may  fuflfcr  and  that  greatly  :  but  this  is  his  own  fault,  and  tjie  fauft 
cnflaving  law;  and  not  of  the  law  that  does  juftice  to  the 
oppr  h 

You Tay,  a  law  cf  emancipation  would  be  unjufr.,  becaufe  it  would  de- 
prive men  of  their  property :  but  is  there  no  injufticeon  the  other  ficfe^ 
Js  nobody  intitled  to  juftice,  hut  flave-holders  ?  Let  us  con'fider  the  in. 
juftice  on  both  fides ;  and  weigh  them  in  an  ev  n  balance.  On  the  one 
hand,  we  fre  a  m.in  deprived  of  all  property,  of  all  capacity  to  poflefs 
property,  of  his  own  free  agency,  of  the  means  of  inftruclion,  of  his 
wife,  of  his  children,  of  almort  every  thing  dear  to  him:  on  the 

othefj 


•ther,  a  maa  deprived  of  eighty  or  an  hundred  pounds.  Shall  we 
hefnate  a  moment  to  determine,  who  is  the  greateft  fufferer,  and  who 
is  treated  with  the  greateft  injustice?  The  matter  appears  quite  glar- 
ing, when  we  c©nfider,  that  neither  this  man,  nor  his  parents,  had 
finned,  that  he  was  born  to  thefe  fufferings;  but  the  other  fuffers 
altogether  for  his  own  1m,  and  that  of  his  predeceSTors.  Such  a  law 
would  only  take  away  property,  that  is  its  own  property,  and  not 
ours  j  property  that  has  the  fame  right  to  poffefs  us,  as  its  property, 
as  we  have  to  poSTefs  it ;  property  that  has  the  fame  right  to  convert 
our  children  into  dogs,  and  calves,  and  colts,  as  we  have  to  convert 
theirs  into  thefe  beafts ;  property  that  may  transfer  our  children  ta 
ftrangers,  by  the  fame  right  that  we  transfer  theirs. 

Human  legislatures  Should  remember,  that  they  act  in  fubordination 
to  the  great  Ruler  of  the  univerfe,  have  no  right  to  take  the  govern- 
ment out  of  his  hand,  nor  to  enact  laws  contrary  to  his  j  that  if  they 
fhould  prefumeto  attempt  it,  they  cannot  make  that  right,  which  he 
has  made  wrong  5  they  cannot  diSTolve  the  allegiance  of  his  fubjects, 
and  transfer  it  to  themfelves,  and  thereby  free  the  people  from  their 
obligations  to  obey  the  laws  of  nature.  The  people  mould  know, 
that  legislatures  have  not  this  power;  and  that  a  thousand  laws  can 
never  make  that  innocent,  which  the  divine  law  has  made  criminal  j 
or  give  them  a  right  to  that,  which  the  divine  law  forbids  them  to 
claim. 

But  to  the  above  reply  it  may  be  farther  objected,  That  neither 
we,  nor  the  legislature,  enslaved  the  Africans  ;  but  they  enflaved  on« 
another,  and  we  only  purchafed  thefe  whom  they  had  made  prifoners 
of  war,  and  reduced  to  Slavery. 

Making  prifoners  of  war  Slaves,  though  practifed  by  the  Romans 
and  other  ancient  nations,  and  though  ftill  practifed  by  fome  barbar- 
ous tribes,  can  by  no  means  be  juftified  :  it  is  unreafonable  and  cruel. 
Whatever  may  be  faid  of  the  chief  authors  and  promoters  of  an  unjuSl 
war,  the  common  foldier,  who  is  under  command  and  obliged  to  obey, 
and,  as  is  often  the  cafe,  deprived  of  the  means  of  information  as  to 
the  grounds  of  the  war,  certainly  cannot  be  thought  guilty  of  a 
crime  fo  heinous,  that  for  it  himfelf  and  posterity  deferve  the  dreadful 
punishment  of  perpetual  fervitude.  It  is  a  cruelty  that  the  prefent 
practice  of  all  civilized  nations  bears  teftimony  againft.  Allow  then 
the  matter  objected  to  be  true,  and  it  will  not  juftify  our  practice  of 
enflaving  the  Africans.  But  the  matter  contained  in  the  objection  is 
only  true  in  part.  The  hiSlory  of  the  Slave  trade  is  too  tragical  to  be 
read  without  a  bleeding  heart  and  weeping  eyes. 

A  few  of  thefe  unhappy  Africans,  and  comparatively  very  few,  are 
criminals,  v/hofe  fervitude  is  inflicted  as  a  puniShmeut  for  their 
crimes.  The  main  body  are  innocent,  unfufpedting  creatures,  free, 
living  in  peace,  doing  nothing  to  forfeit  the  common  privileges  ef 

men. 


[    '5    ] 

men.  They  are  ftolen,  or  violently  borne  away  by  armed  force, 
from  their  country,  their  parents,  and  all  their  tender  connections  j 
treated  with  an  indignity  and  indecency  fhameful  to  mention,  and  a 
cruelty  fhocking  to  all  the  tender  feelings  of  humanity  ;  and  they  and 
their  posterity  forced  into  a  itate  of  fervitude  and  wretchednefs  for 
ever.  It  is  true,  they  are  commonly  taken  prifoners  by  Africans  j 
but  it  is  the  encouragement  given  by  Europeans  that  tempts  the  Afri- 
cans to  carry  on  thefe  unprovoked  wars.  They  furnifli  them  with 
the  means,  and  hold  out  to  them  a  reward  for  their  plunder.  If  the 
Africans  are  thieves,  the  Europeans  ftand  ready  to  receive  the  ftolen 
goods  j  it  the  former  are  robbers,  the  latter  furnifli  them  with  arms, 
and  purchafe  the  fpoil.  In  this  cafe,  who  is  the  moft  criminal,  the 
civilized  European,  or  the  untutored  African  r  The  European  mer- 
chants know,  that  they  themfelves  are  the  great  encouragers  of  thefe 
wars  5  as  they  are  the  principal  gainers  by  the  event.  They  furnifli 
the  fmews,  add  the  ftrength,  and  receive  the  gain.  They  know,  that 
they  purchafe  thefe  flaves  of  thefe  who  have  no  juft  pretence  to 
claim  them  as  theirs.  The  African  can  give  the  European  no  better 
claim  than  he  himfelf  has  ;  the  European  merchant  can  give  us  no 
better  claim  than  is  vetted  in  him  ;  and  that  is  one  founded  only  in 
violence  or  fraud. 

In  confirmation  of  this  account  might  be  produced  many  fubftantial 
vouchers,  and  fome  who  had  fpent  much  time  in  this  nefarious 
traffic.  But  fuch  as  are  accultomed  to  liften  to  the  melancholy  tales 
of  thefe  unfortunate  Africans,  cannot  want  fufficient  evidence.  Thofe 
who  have  ieen  multitudes  of  poor  innocent  children  driven  to  market, 
and  fold  like  beafts,  have  it  demonftrated  before  their  eyes. 

It  will  be  farther  objected,  That  in  our  fituation,  the  abolition  of 
flavery  would  be  bad  policy;  becaufe  it  would  difcourage  emigrants 
from  the  Eaflward,  prevent  the  population  of  this  country,  and  con- 
fequently  its  opulence  and  ftrength. 

I  doubt  not  but  it  would  prevent  a  number  of  flave-holders  from 
coming  into  this  country,  with  their  flaves.  But  this  would  be  far, 
very  far  from  being  an  evil.  It  would  be  a  moil  defirable  event :  it 
would  be  keeping  out  a  great  and  intolerable  nuifance,  the  bane  of 
tvtry  country  where  it  is  admitted,  the  caufe  of  ignorance  and  vice, 
and  of  national  poverty  and  weaknefs.  On  the  other  hand,  if  I  mif- 
take  not,  it  would  invite  five  ufeful  citizens  into  our  ftate,  where  it 
would  keep  out  one  flave-holder  :  and  who  would  not  rejoice  in  the 
happy  exchange  ?  Turn  your  eyes  to  the  Eaftward  :  behold  numerous 
fhoals  of  flaves,  moving  towards  us,  in  thick  fucceflion.  Look  to 
the  Weftward  -.  fee  a  large,  vacant,  fertile  country,  lying  near,  eafy 
of  accefs,  an  afylum  for  the  miferable,  a  land  of  liberty.  A  man, 
who  has  no  flaves,  cannot  live  eafy  and  contented  in  the  midft  of 
thofe  who  pofftfs  them  in  numbers,  He  is  treated  with  neglecl,  and 

often 


[    '6    ] 

often  with  contempt:  he  is  not  a  companion  for  his  free  neighbours j 
but  only  for  their  more  reputable  flaves  :  his  children  are  looked  upon 
and  treated  by  theirs  as  underlings.  Thefe  things  are  not  eafy  to 
bear;  they  render  his  mind  uneafy,  and  his  fituation  unpleafant. 
When  he  fees  an  open  way  to  remove  from  this  fituation,  and  finds 
it  may  be  done  confident  with  his  intereft,  he  will  not  long  abide  in 
it.  When  he  removes,  his  place  is  filled  up  with  flaves.  Thus  this 
country  will  fpew  out  its  white  inhabitants ;  and  be  peopled  with 
flave-holders,  their  flaves,  and  a  few,  in  the  higheft  pofts  of  a  poor 
free  man,  I  mean  that  of  an  overfeer.  When  we  attentively  view 
and  confider  our  fituation,  with  relation  to  the  Eaft  and  the  Weft,  we 
may  be  allured  that  this  event  will  foon  take  pkce ;  that  the  progrefs 
towards  it  will  be  exceedingly  rapid,  and  grehtly  accelerated  by  the 
fertility  of  our  foil. 

That  this,  on  fuppofition  fhvery  fhould  continue,  would  foon  be 
the  ftate  of  population  in  this  country,  is  not  only  poffible,  but 
very  probable ;  net  only  probable,  but  morally  certain.  But  is  this 
a  definable  fituation  ?  Would  it  be  fafe,  and  comfortable  ?  Would 
it  be  fo,  even  to  mailers  themfelves  ?  I  pi  efume  not :  cfpecially  when 
I  confider,  that  their  near  rteigMiours,  beycnd  the  Ohio,  could  not, 
confiftent  with  their  principles,  affift  them,  in  cafe  of  a  domefUc  in- 
furreclion.  Suppcfe  our  inhabitants  mould  be  fewer;  they  would  be 
ufeful  citizens,  who  could  repofea  mutualconfiden.ee  in  each  other.  To 
increafe  the  inhabitants  of  this  ftate  by  multiplying  an  enemy  within 
our  own  bewels  ;  an  enemy,  with  whom  we  are  in  a  fta'e  of  per- 
petual w.ir,  and  can  never  make  peace,  is  very  far  from  heirg  an  ob- 
jeftofdtftre:  efpecially  if  we  confider,  that  a  ke' ef  of  the  iniquity 
of  this  fervitude  is  fate  gaining  ground.  Should  ch  s  fcnt.ment  obtain, 
fhe  general  belief,  what  might  be  the  event?  Wh-it  v/ould  be  the 
fituation  of  a  certain  defcription  of  men  ?  What  the  condition  of  this 
country  ? 

Another  frightful  objection  to  my  doftrlne  is,  That  mould  we  fet 
our  Haves  free,  it  would  lay  a  foundation  for  intermarriages,  and  ari 
unnatural  mixture  of  blood,  and  our  pofterity  at  Itngth  would  all  be 
Mulattoes. 

This  effecl,  I  grant,  it  would  produce.  I  alfo  grant,  tint  this  ap- 
pears very  unnatural  to  perfons  labouring  under  our  prejudices  of 
education.  I  acknowledge  my  own  pride  remonftrates  againft  it  j 
but  it  does  not  influence  my  judgment,  nor  affect  my  ccnfcience. 

To  plead  this,  as  a  reafon  for  the  continuation  of  flavery,  is  to 
jp'lead  the  fear  that  we  fhould  dlfgrace  ourftlvcs,  as  a  reafon  why  we 
Jhouid  do  injuftice  to  others :  to  plead  that, we  may  continue  in  guilt, 
for  fear  thfe  features  and  complexion  of  our  pofterity  fhould  be  fpoil- 
td.  We  mould  recoiled!,  that  it  is  too  late  to  prevent  this  great  ima- 
jginary  evil  j  the  matter  is  already  gone  beyond  recovery ;  for  it  may 
6  be 


fs  pfo\red  with  mathematical  eertainty,  that,  if  things  go  on  in  th« 
prtfcnt  channel,  the  future  inhabitants  of  America  will  inevitably  b* 
Mulattoes. 

How  often  have  men  children  hy  their  own  fl.wes,  by  their  fathers' 
flaves,  or  the  (laves  of  their  neighbours  ?  How  faft  is  the  number  of 
Mulattoes  increaling  ip  every  part  of  the  land  ?  Yifit  the  little  towns 
and  villages' to  the  Eaftwaici;  vifit  the  feats  of  gentlemen,  who 
abound  in  flaves ;  and  fee-  how  they  fwarm  on  every  hand  !.  All  the 
I'h.idrcn  of  iVluIattoes  will  be  Mulattoes,  and  the  whites  arc  daily 
adding  to  the  number  j  which  will  continually  increaft:  the  proportion 
of  Mulattoes.  Thus  this  evil  is  coming  upon  us  in  a  way  much  more 
difgraceful,  and  unnatural,  than  intermarriages.  Fathers  will  have 
their  own  children  for  flaves,  and  leave  them  as  an  inheritance  to 
£luir  children.  Men  will  pofltfs  their  brothers  and  lifters  as  their 
property,  leave  them  10  their  heirs,  or  feii  them  to  itrangers.  Youth 
will  have  their  grey  headed  uncles  and  aunts  for  Haves,  call  them  their 
property,  and  transfer  them  to  others.  Men  will  humble  their  own 
.  Oi'  cvtn  their  aunts,  to  gratify  their  luft.  An  hard-hearted 
tttafUr  will  not  know,  whether  he  has  a  blood  relation,  a  brother  or 
a  ftftvr,  An  uncle  or  an  nust,  or  ;i  ihangcr  of  Africa,  under  hi* 
fannying  hpinK '  ithi«  ie 'not  tht  v>vik  of  itD.i^inatiuii  j  it  has  been 
i'uquently  !<\Ui*ed. 

The  worft  that  can  be  mate  of  this  objection,  ugjy  as  it  Is,  is,  that 
it  would  be  hastening  an  evil  in  an  honsft  way,  which  we  are  already 
bringing  on  pur/elves  in  a  way  that  is  absolutely  dilhoneft,  perfect!/ 
^arneluJ,  and  extremely  criminal.  This  objection  then  can  have  no 
weight  with  a  reafonable  man,  who  can  divert  himfelf  of  his  prejudi- 
ces and  his  pride,  and  view  the  matter  as  really  circumftanced.  The 
evil  is  inevitable  :  but  as  it  is  a  prejudice  of  education,  it  would  be  an 
evil  only  in  its  approach  j  as  it  drew  near,  it  would  decreafe  j  when 
fully  come,  it  would  ceafe  to  exift. 

Another  objection  to  my  doctrine,  and  that  efteemed  by  fome  the 
moft  formidable,  ftill  lies  before  me  ;  an  objeciiun  taken  from  the 
facred  fcriptures.  There  will  be  produced  on  the  occafion,  the  ex- 
amj>le  of  faithful  Abraham,  recorded  in  Gen.  xvi .  and  the  law  of 
Mofcs,  recorded  m  Lev.  xxv.  The  injunctions  laid  upon  frrvants  in 
the  gotptl,  particularly  by  the  Apofhe  Paul,  w.ll  ,.lfo  be  introduced 
here.  Thefe  will  all  be  dirccled,  as  formidable  art-llevy,  againft  met 
and  in  defence  ot  abfolutt  flavery. 

From  the  patfage  in  Genefis,  it  is  argued,  by  the  advocates  for 
perpetual  flavery,  1  hat  fince  Abraham  had  fervants  born  in  his  houfe 
and  bought  with  money,  they  muft  have  been  fervants  for  life,  like 
our  Negroes  :  and  hence  they  conclude,  that  it  is  lawful  for  us  to 
purchafe  heathen  fervanu,  and  if  they  have  children  born  in  our 
.  ro  make  them  fervants  allb.  From  the  J.?w  of  Mofes  it  is 

argued^ 


[  1*  J 

argued,  that  the  Israelites  were  authorised  to  leave  the  children  of 
their  fervams,  as  an  inheritance  to  their  own  children  for  ever :  and 
hence  it  is  inferred,  that  we  may  leave  the  children  of  our  flaves  as 
an  inheritance  to  our  children  for  ever.  If  this  was  immoral  in  itfelfy 
a  juft  GOD  would  never  have  given  it  the  fanftion  of  his  authority  j 
and,  if  lawful  in  itftlfj  we  may  fafely  follow  the  example  of  Abra- 
ham, and  aft  according  to  the  lav/  of  Mofcs. 

None,  I  hope,  will  make  this  objection,  but  thofe  who  believe 
thefe  writings  to  be  of  divine  authority  ;  for  if  they  are  not  fo,  it  It 
little  to  the  purpofe  to  introduce  them  here.  If  you  grant  them  to  be 
of  divine  authority,  you  will  alfo  grant,  that  they  are  confiftent  with 
themfelves>  and  that  one  pafiagc  may  help  to  explain  another.  Grant 
me  this,  and  then  I  reply  to  the  objection. 

In  the  nth  verfe  of  th*  i7th  of  Genefis,  we  find  that  Abraham 
was  commanded  to  eircumcife  all  that  were  born  in  his  houfe,  or 
bought  with  money.  We  find  in  the  fequel  of  the  chapter,  that  he 
obeyed  this  command  without  delay ;  and  actually  circumcifed  every 
male  in  his  family,  who  came  under  this  defcription.  This  law  of 
ciicumcifion  continued  in  force  j  it  was  not  repealed,  but  confirmed" 
by  trie  law  of  Mofes. 

Now,  to  the  circumcifed  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God  ;  and 
circumcifion  was  a  token  of  that  covenant  by  which,  among  other 
things,  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  the  various  privileges  in  it,  were 
promifed  to  Abraham,  and  his  feed  j  to  all  that  were  included  in  that 
covenant.  All  were  included,  to  whom  circumcifion,  which  was 
the  token  of  the  covenant,  was  adminiftered,  agreeably  to  God*s 
command.  By  divine  appointment,  not  only  Abraham  and  his  natu- 
ral feed,  but  he  that  was  bought  with  money  of  any  ftranger  that 
was  not  of  his  feed,  was  circumcifed.  Since  the  feed  of  the  ftranger 
received  the  token  of  this  covenant,  we  muft  believe,  that  he  was 
included,  and  interefted  in  it ;  that  the  benefits  promifed  were  to  be 
conferred  on  him.  Thefe  perfons  bought  with  money  were  no  longer 
loSked  upon  as  uncircumcifed  and  unclean,  as  aliens  and  ftrangers  j 
but  were  incorporated  into  the  church  and  nation  of  the  Ifraelites  ; 
and  became  one  people  with  them,  became  God's  covenant  people. 
Whence  it  appears,  that  fuitable  provifion  was  made  by  the  divine 
law  that  they  fiiould  be  properly  educated,  made  free,  and  enjoy  all 
the  common  privileges  of  citizens.  It  was  by  the  divine  law  enjoined 
upon  the  Ifraelites,  thus  to  circumcife  all  the  males  born  in  their 
houfes  3  then,  if  the  purchafed  fervants  in  queftion  had  any  children, 
their  matters  were  bound  by  law  to  incorporate  them  into  their 
church  and  nation.  Thefe  children,  then,  were  the  fervants  of  the 
Lord,  in  the  fame  fenfe  as  the  natural  defendants  of  Abraham  were; 
and  therefore,  according  to  the  law,  Lev.  xxv.  42,  55.  they  could 
not  be  made  Haves*  The  paffages  of  fcripture  under  confideratiorv 

were 


C    '9    1 

were  fo  far  from  authorifmg  the  Ifraelites  to  make  flaves  of  their  fcr- 
vants'  children,  that  they  evidently  forbid  it ;  and  therefore  are  fo  far 
from  proving  the  lawfulnefs  of  our  enflavinj  the  children  of  the  Afri- 
cans, that  they  clearly  condemn  the  practice  as  criminal. 

Thefe  paffages  of  facred  writ  have  been  wickedly  prefied  into  the 
fertice  of  Mammon,  perhaps  more  frequently  than  any  others  :  but 
does  it  not  now  appear,  that  thcfe  weighty  pieces  of  artillery  may  be 
fairly  wrefted  from  the  enemy,  and  turned  upon  the  hofts  oi  the 
Mammonites,  with  very  good  effect  ? 

The  advocates  for  flavery  mould  have  obferved,  that  in  the  law  of 
Mofes  referred  to,  there  is  not  the  leaft  mention  made  of  the  children 
of  thefe  fervants  ;  it  is  not  faid  that  they  mould  be  fetvantsj  or  any 
thing  about  them.  No  doubt,  fomc  of  them  had  children,  but  it 
was  unneceflary  to  mention  them  ;  becaufe  they  were  already  provi- 
ded for,  by  the  law  of  circumcifion. 

To  extend  the  law  of  Moles  to  the  children  of  thefe  fervants,  is 
arbitrary  and  prcfumptuous  ;  it  is  making  them  include  much  more 
than  is  expreffed  or  neceffarily  implied  in  the  text.  It  cannot  b* 
neceflarily  implied  in  the  expreffien,  They  Jhall  be  your  bondmen  for 
ever  ;  becaufe  the  word  for  ever  is  evidently  limited  by  the  nature 
of  the  fubjeft  ;  and  nothing  appears,  by  which  it  can  be  more  pro*, 
pefly  limited,  than  the  life  of  the  fervants  purchafed.  The  fenfe 
thtn  is  fimply  this,  they  fhall  ferve  you  and  your  children  as  long  as 
they  live. 

We  cannot  certainly  determine  how  thefe  perfons  were  made  fer- 
vants at  firft  5  nor  is  it  necefiary  we  mould.  Whether  they  were  per- 
fons  who  had  forfeited  their  liberty  by  capital  crimes  ;  or  whether 
they  had  involved  themfclves  in  debt  by  folly  and  extravagance,  and 
fubmitted  to  ferve  during  their  lives,  in  order  to  avoid  a  greater  cala- 
mity;  or  whether  they  were  driven  to  that  neceffity  in  their  younger 
days,  for  want  of  friends  to  take  care  of  them,  we  cannot  tell.  This 
however  we  may  be  fure  of,  that  the  Ifraelites  were  not  fent  by  a  di» 
vine  law  to  nations  three  thoufand  miles  difbnt,  who  were  neither 
doing,  nor  meditating  any  thing  againft  them,  and  with  whom  they 
had  nothing  to  do  ;  in  order  to  captivate  them  by  fraud  or  force,  tear 
them  away  from  their  country  and  all  their  tender  connections,  bind 
tht-rn  in  chains,  crowd  them  into  fhips,  and  there  murder  them  by 
thoufands,  with  the  want  of  air  and  exercife ;  and  then  condemn  the 
furvivors  and  their  pofterity  to  flavery  for  ever. 

But  it  is  further  objected,  That  the  Apoftle  advifes  fervants  to  be 
contented  with  their  ftate  of  fervitude,  and  obedient  to  their  matters; 
and,  though  he  charges  their  matters  to  ufe  them  well,  he  nowhere 
commands  them  to  fet  them  free. 

I-n  order  rightly  to  underftand  this  matter,  we  mould  recolleft  the 
fituation  of  Clir&ians  at  this  time.  They  were  under  the  Roman 

yoke, 


t;  ™  i 

yoke,  the  government  of  the  heathen  ;  who  were  watching  every  op* 
portunity  of  charging  them  with  defigns  againft  their  government,  in 
order  to  juftify  their  bloody  perfections.  In  fuch  circumflances,  for 
the  Apoftle  to  have  proclaimed  liberty  to  the  Daves,  would  probably 
have  expofed  many  of  them  to  certain  deftruftion,  brought  ruin  on 
the  Chriftian  caufe,  and  that  without  the  profpedl  of  freeing  one 
Tingle  man;  which  would  have  been  the  height  of  madnefs  and 
cruelty.  It  was  wife,  it  was  humane  in  him,  not  to  drop  a  fmgle 
hint  on  this  fubjecl:,  farther  thari  faying,  If  tbou  mayeft  be  madefr^  ujt 
V  rather. 

Though  the  Apoilles  acted  with  this  prudent  referve,  the  unreafon- 
ablenefs  of  perpetual  unconditional  flavery  may  eafily  be  inferred 
from  the  righteous  and  benevolent  doclrines  and  duties  taught  in  the 
New  Teftament.  It  is  quite  evident,  that  flavery  is  contrary  to  th,c 
fpirit  and  genius  of  the  Chriftian  religion.  It  is  contrary  to  that  ex- 
cellent precept  laid  down'  by  the  divine  Author  of  the  Chiiftian  in- 
ftitution,  viz.  Wbatfivaer yt  would  that  men  jhwld  do  to  you-,  dc  ye  even 
fo  to  them.  A  pr.ecept  fo  finely  calculated  to  teach  the  duties  of1  juftice, 
to  inforce  their  obligation,  and  induce  the  mind  :to  obedience,  that 
nothing  can  excel  it.  No  man,  when  he  views  the  hardships,  the 
futTerings,  the  exccffive  iai-curs,  the  unreafonabie  chaftifements,  the 
reparations  between  loving  hufbands  and  wives,  between  arfedlionate 
parents  and  children,  can  fay,  "  Vv'ere  I  in  their  place,  I  mould  be 
contented.  I  fo  far  approve  this  ufage,  as  to  believe  the  law  that  fub- 
J£cls  me  to  it  is  pet  fcdly  right ;  that  I  and  my  pofterity  fhould  be  de- 
nied the  protection  of  law,  and  by  it  be  expofed  to  fuffer  all  thefe  cala- 
mities; though  I  never  forfeited  my  freedom,  nor  merited  fuch  treat- 
ment, more  than  others."  No;  there  is  an  honeft  SOMETHING  in 
our  breafts,  that  bears  teftimohy  againft  this,  as  unreafonabie  and 
wicked.  I  found  it  in  my  own  breaft  near  forty  years  ago ;  and 
through  all  the  changes  of  time,  the  influence  of  cuftom,  the  arts  of 
fophiftry,  and  the  fafcinations  of  intereft,  it  remains  there  ftill.  I 
believe  it  is  a  law  of  my  nature;  a  law  of  more  ancient  date  than 
any  aft  of  parliament  j  and  which  no  human  le§iflature  can  ever  re- 
peal.'  It  is  a  law  infcribed  on  every  human  heart ;  and  may  there  be 
feen  in  legible  characters,  unlefs  it  is  hlotred  by  vice,  or  the  eye  of 
the  mind  blinded  by  intereft.  Should  I  do  any  thing  to  countenance 
this  evil,  I  fhould  fight  againft  my  own  he.irt-  fhou'd  1  not  ufe  my 
influence  to  annihilate  it,  my  own  conference  would  condemn  me. 

It  maybe  farther  objected,  This  flavery,  it  is  true,  is  a  great  evil} 
but  ftill  greater  evils  would  follow  emancipation.  Men, who  have 
laid  out  their  money  in  the  purchafe  of  (laves,  and  now  have 
little  other  property,  would  certainly  be  -reat  fufferers.  Befidesy 
the  (laves  themfelvts  are  unacquainted  with  the  arts  of  life ;  being 
ufed  to  ad  .only  under  the  direction  of  others,  they  have  never  ac- 
«  quired 


quired  the  habits  cf  induftry  ;  have  not  that  ferrfi?  of  property  anj 
fpirit  of  emulation  neceffary  to  make  them  ufehil  citizens.  Man/ 
have  been  fo  long  accuftomed  to  the  meaner  vices,  habituated  to  ly- 
ing, pilfering  and  dealing,  that  when  pinched  with  want,  they  would 
commit  thefe  crimes,  become  pert*  to  fociety,  or  end  their  days  on. 
the  gallows.  Here  are  eyils  on  both  hands,  and  of  two  evils,  we 
fhould  take  the  leaft. 

This  is  a  good  rule,  when  applied  to  natural  evils  $  but  with  moral 
evils  it  has  nothing  to  do  ;  for  of  thefe  we  muft  chufe  neither.  Of 
two  evils,  the  one  natural,  the  other  moral,  we  muft  always  chufe 
the  natural  evil }  for  moral  evil,  which  is  the  fame  thing  as  fin,  can 
never  be  a  proper  object  of  choice.  Enflaving  our  fellow  creatures 
is  a  moral  evil $  fome  of  its  effects  are  moral,  and  fome  natural. 
There  is  no  way  fo  proper  to  avoid  the  moral  evil  effects,  as  by  avoidl 
ing  the  caufe.  The  natural  evil  effects  of  emancipation  can  never  be 
a  balance  for  the  moral  evils  of  flavery,  or  a  reafon  why  we  fhould. 
prefer  the  latter  to  the  former. 

Here  we  fhould  confider,  on  whom  thefe  evils  are  to  be  charged ; 
and  we  fhall  find  they  lie  at  our  own  doors,  they  are  chargeable  on  us. 
We  have  brought  one  generation  into  this  wretched  ftate;  and  fhall 
we  therefore  doom  all  the  generations  of  their  pofterity  to  it  ?  Do  \v« 
fend  by  experience,  that  this  ftate  of  flavery  corrupts  and  ruins  human 
nature  ?  and  fhall  we  perfift  in  corrupting  and  ruining  it,  in  order  tb 
avoid  the  natural  evils  we  have  already  produced  ?  Do  we  find,  as  the 
ancient  Poetfaid,  that  the  day  we  deprive  a  man  of  freedom,  we  take 
away  half  his  foul  ?  and  fhall  we  continue  to  maim  fouls,  becaufe  a 
maimed  foul  is  unfit  for  fociety  ?  Strange  reafoning  indeed !  An 
aftonifhing.confequence!  I  fhould  have  looked  for  a  conclufion  quite 
oppofite  to  this,  viz.  That  we  fhould  be  fenfible  of  the  evil  of  our  con- 
duct, and  perfirt  in  it  no  longer.  To  me  this  appears  a  very  powerful 
argument  againft  flavery,  and  a  convincing  proof  of  its  iniquity.  It 
is  ruining  GOD'S  creatures  whom  he  has  made  free  moral  agents,  and 
accountable  beings  ;  creatures  who  ftill  belong  to  him,  and  are  not 
left  U>  us  to  ruin  at  cur  pleafure. 

However,  the  objection  is"  weighty,  and  the  difficulty  fuggefted 
great.  But  I  do  not  think,  that  it  is  fuch  as  ought  to  deter  us  from 
our  doty,  or  tempt  us  to  continue  a  practice,  fo  inconfifteut  with 
juftice  and  found  policy.  Therefore  I  give  it  as  my  opinion,  that  the 
fiift  thing  to  be  done  is,  To  njolve  UNCONDITIONALLY  to  put  an 
e*d  to  Jiwtry  In  this  ftatt.  This,  I  conceive,  properly  belongs  to  t'ie 
Convention  ;  which  they  can  eafily  effect,  by  working  the  principfe 
intoth*  conftitution  they  are  to  frame. 

If  there  is  net  in  government  fome  fixed  principles  fuperior  to  all 
law,  and  above  the  power  of  legislators,  there  can  be  no  liability,  or 
confifUncy  in  it :  it  vrillb*  continually  fluctuating  with  tht-Dpinions, 

humour, 


humours,  paffions,  prejudices,  or  interefts,  cf  different  legiflative 
bodies.  Liberty  is  an  inherent  right  of  man,  of  every  man  5  the 
existence  of  which  ought  not  to  depend  upon  the  mutability  of  legif- 
lationj  but  fhould  be  wrought  into  the  very  constitution  of  our 
government,  and  be  made  effential  to  it. 

The  devifing  ways  and  means  to  accomplifh  this  end,  fo  as  fhall 
beft  confift  with  the  pubiic  intereft,  will  be  the  duty  of  our  future 
legislature. 

This  evil  is  a  tree  that  has  been  long  planted,  it  has  been  growing 
many  years,  it  has  taken  deep  root,  its  trunk  is  large,  and  its  branches 
extended  wide :  mould  it  be  cut  down  fuddenly,  it  might  crufh  all 
that  grow  near  it  j  fhould  it  be  violently  eradicated,  it  might  tear  up 
the  ground  in  which  it  grows,  and  produce  fatal  effects.  It  is  true, 
the  flaves  have  a  jufl  claim  to  be  freed  inftantly :  but  by  our  bad  coh- 
duft,  we  have  rendered  them  incapable  of  enjoying,  and  properly 
ufingthis  their  birth-right  5  and  therefore  a  gradual  emancipation  only 
can  be  advifeable.  The  limbs  of  this  tree  muft  be  lopped  off  by  little 
and  little,  the  trunk  gradually  hewn  down,  and  the  flump  and  roots 
left  to  rot  in  the  ground. 

The  legislature,  if  they  judged  it  expedient,  would  prevent  the  im- 
portation of  any  more  flaves ;  they  would  enaft  that  all  born  after  fuch 
a  date  fhould  be  born  free  ;  be  qualified  by  proper  education  to  make 
ufeful  citizens ;  and  be  actually  freed  at  a  proper  age. 

It  h  no  fmall  recommendation  of  this  plan,  that  it  fo  nearly  coincides 
\vith  the  Mofaic  law,  in  this  eafe  provided  j  to  which,  even  fuppofe 
it  a  human  institution,  great  refpeci  is  due  for  its  antiquity,  its  jurtite 
and  humanity. 

It  would,  I  think,  avoid  in  a  great  meafure,  all  the  evils  mentioned 
in  the  objection.  All  that  was  the  matter's  own,  at  the  time  fixed 
upon  in  the  aft,  would  be  ftill  his  own  :  All  that  fhould  defcend  from 
them  would  be  his  own  until  he  was  paid  for  their  education.  All  he 
would  lofe  would  he  the  profpeft  of  his  children  being  enriched  at 
the  expence  of  thofe  who  arc  unborn.  Would  any  man  murmur  at 
having  this  profpeft,  which  was  given  him  by  an  iniquitous  law,  and 
cannot  be  enjoyed  without  guilt,  cutoff  by  a  righteous  law,  that  frees 
from  oppreffion  future  generations  ? 

Is  there  any  fuch  man  to  be  found  ?  Let  us  ftop  a  moment  to  hear 
his  complaint.  "  I  have  long  lived  happy  by  oppreffion.  I  wanted 
to  leave  this  privilege  as  an  inheritance  to  my  children.  I  had  a  de- 
lightfome  profpect  of  their  living  alfo  in  eafe  and  fplendour  at  the 
expence  of  others.  This  iniquity  was  once  fanclified  by  a  law,  of 
which  I  hoped  my  children's  children  would  have  enjoyed  the  fweets ; 
but  now  this  hard-hearted,  this  cruel  Convention  has  cut  off  this 
pleating  profpect. 

They 


t  **  ] 

**  They  vrill  not  fiifFer  my  children  to  live  in  eafe  and  luxmy,  at 
the  expence  of  poor  Africans.  They  have  refolved,  and  alas !  the 
refolution  muft  ftand  for  ever,  that  black  men  in  the  next  generation 
fhall  enjoy  the  fruit  of  their  own  labour,  as  well  as  white  men  j  and 
be  happy  according  to  the  merit  of  their  own  conduct.  If  jufttce  be 
done  to  the  offspring  of  Negroes,  mine  are  eternally  ruined.  If  my 
children  carniot,  as  I  have  done,  live  in  injuftice  and  cruelty,  they  are 
injured,  they  are  robbed,  they  are  undone.  What,— muft  young 
mafter  faddle  his  own  horfe  ? — Muft  pretty  little  mifs  fweep  the  houfe 
and  walh  the  dimes  ? — and  thefe  black  devils  be  free  !— — No  heart 
can  bear  it ! — Such  is  the  difference  between  us  and  them,  that  it  is 
a  greater  injury  to  us  to  be  deprived  of  their  labour,  than  it  is  to  them 
to  be  deprived  of  their  liberty  and  every  thing  elfe.  This  wicked 
Convention  will  have  to  anfwer  another  day,  for  the  great  injury  they 
have  done  us,  in  doing  juftice  to  them." 

Emancipation  on  fome  fuch  plan  as  above  hinted,  would  probabiy, 
rn  many  inftances,  be  a  real  advantage  to  children  in  point  of  wealth. 
Parents  would  educate  them  in  fuch  a  manner,  and  place  them  in  fuch 
circumftances,  as  would  be  more  to  their  intereft,  than  poflefling 
fuch  unproductive  eftat.es  as  flaves  are  found  to  be. 

The  children  would  imbibe  a  noble  independent  fpirit,  learn  a  habit 
ef  managing  bufmefs  and  helping  themfelves.  They  would  learn  to 
fcorn  the  mean  and  beggarly  way  of  living  at  the  expence  of  others, 
living  in  fplendor  on  plunder  of  the  innocent.  Where  eftates  were 
wifely  managed,  children  would  not  find  their  fortunes  diminished. 
They  would  not  be  mocked  with  nominal,  but  poflefs  real  wealth  j 
wealth  that  would  not  merely  feed  their  vanity,  but  fill  their  coffers. 

The  children  of  the  flaves,  inftead  of  being  ruined  for  want  of 
education,  would  be  fo  brought  up  as  to  become  ufeful  citizens.  The 
country  would  improve  by  their  induftryj  manufactures  would 
ilourifh ;  and,  in  time  of  war,  they  would  not  be  the  terror,  but  the 
ftrength  and  defence  of  the  ftate. 

It  may  be  farther  objected,  That  to  attempt,  even  in  this  gradual 
way,  the  annihilation  of  flavery  in  this  country,  where  fo  many  are 
deeply  Jnterefted,  might  fo  fcnnbly  touch  the  intereft  of  fome  un- 
reafonabU  men,  as  probably  to  ftir  up  great  confufion,  and  endanger 
<he  tranquillity  of  our  infant  ftate. 

Though  I  doubt  not  but  fome  men  of  narrow  minds,  under  the 
Influence  of  j>rej'idice  orcovetoufnefs,  might  be  made  uneafy  and  dif- 
pofcd  to  clamour}  yet  I  apprehend  but  little  danger  of  any  ill  effects. 
The  meafure  would  be  fo  agreeable  to  the  honeft  dilates  of  confci- 
ence,  the  growing  fentiments  of  the  country,  and  of  many  even  of 
the  flave-holders  themfelves,  that  any  opposition  they  might  make 
•would  not  be  fupported  j  and  they  would  be  too  ivifc  to  hazard  the 
an  event  they  fo  much  dread. 

If 


r.  n  r 

If  the  growing  opinion  of  the  unlawfulnefs  of  flavery  fliould  con- 
tinue to  grow,  holding  men  in  that  Hate  will  foon  be  impracticable  J 
there  will  be  no  cauf'e  exifting  fumcient  to  produce  the  effect.  When 
this  (hall  happen  a  certain  event  may  fuddenly  take  place,  the  confe- 
quences  of  which  may  be  very  difagreeable.  This  I  t..ke  to  be  the 
proper  time  to  prevent  this  evil.  We  may  now  do  it  in  a  peaceable 
manner,  without  going  a  ftep  out  of  the  way  of  our  duty,  and  with- 
out hazarding  what  might  be  attended  with  tenfold  more  confufion 
and  danger. 

The  flavery  of  the  Negroes  began  in  iniquity  ;  a  curfe  has  attended 
it,  and  a  curfe  will  follow  it.  National  vices  will  be  puniflied  with 
national  calamities;  Let  us  avoid  thefe  vices,  that  we  may  avoid  the 
punifhment  which  they  deferve  ;  and  endeavour  fo  to  aft,  as  to  fecure 
the  approbation  and  fmiles, of  Heaven. 

Holding^mtn  in  flavery  is  the  national  vice  of  Virginia  j  and,  whil* 
a  part  of  that  ftate,  we  were  partakers  of  the  guilt.  As  a  fepar.ite 
ftate,  we  are  juft  now  come  to  the  birth;  and  it  depends  upon  our 
free  choice,  whether  we  fhaH  be  born  in  this  Tin,  or  innocent  of  it. 
We  now  have  it  in  our  power  to  adopt  it  as  our  national  crime ;  or  to 
bear  a  national  teftimony  againft  it.  I  hope  the  latter  will  be  ou* 
choice;  that  we  (hall  warn  our  hands  of  this  guilt,  and  not  leave  it 
in  the  power  of  a  future  legiflature,  ever  more  to  ftain  our  reputation 
cr  our  conference  wstb  it. 


THE    E  N  B. 


Of  M.  G  u  R  N  E  Y  may  alfo  le  bady  . 

Moft  of  the  PAMPHLETS  lately  pubKihed 
on  the  foregoing  SUBJECT* 


Binder 

Oylord  Bros..  Inc. 
Stockton,  Calif. 
.M.Beg.U.S.P«t.°«- 


M10299 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


